Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: December 01, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000756
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 25(8) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N. 2
Appellant: Steven Young Appellant: Desiree and Virginia Torrie Applicant: Andrew and Emily McMillin Subject: Approval of a Development Permit Application Description: Proposed to construct a new three-storey single dwelling Reference Number: G/R/2022-2023/608 Property Address: 236 Sleepy Hollow Road Municipality/UT: Grey/Grey OLT Case No: OLT-23-000756 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000756 OLT Case Name: Torrie v. Ontario (NEC)
Heard: October 11, 2023 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| Steven Young | Self-represented |
| Desiree and Virginia Torrie | Self-represented |
| Andrew and Emily McMillin | Self-represented |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JENNIFER CAMPBELL ON OCTOBER 11, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This Decision arises from a Case Management Conference (the “CMC”) brought before the Ontario Land Tribunal (in its role as the Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office (the “Hearing Office”)) regarding the appeal brought by Steven Young and Desiree and Virginia Torrie (collectively, the “Appellants”) concerning the conditional approval by the Niagara Escarpment Commission (the “Respondent”) of a development permit application providing for construction of a three-storey single dwelling at the property located at 236 Sleepy Hollow Road in the Town of The Blue Mountains, Grey County, Ontario (the “Property”).
2At the CMC, Party status was requested by (i) Andrew and Emily McMillin (together, the "Applicant"); and (ii) Greg Brown, the President of the condominium corporation governing the Property (the “Condominium Corporation”). In addition, the Parties discussed the identification of issues to be adjudicated at a hearing as well as opportunities for settlement discussions and potential hearing dates.
STATUS REQUESTS
3The Applicant submitted a request for Party status. Its request for Party status was on consent. The Hearing Office found that the Applicant has a genuine and direct interest in the proceeding, will be impacted by the decision of the Hearing Office, and will assist the Hearing Office in making its decision. The Hearing Office found that there are reasonable grounds to add the Applicant as a Party and granted it Party status, as requested.
4Mr. Brown also submitted a request for Party status, which Mr. Brown advised was in order to address any issues concerning the proposed development, which related to the Declaration and/or common elements of the Condominium Corporation. After further discussion regarding the role of a Party in the proceedings, Mr. Brown agreed that his role was better suited to that of a witness to be called by the Parties as required and not as a Party himself. He thereupon withdrew his request for Party status.
IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES
5The Parties discussed the identification of the issues to be adjudicated at a hearing. A draft Procedural Order and Issues List had not been circulated in advance of the CMC. However, a summary of the issues raised by the Appellants was set out in the original notice of appeal, which the Parties proceeded to discuss as follows:
(i) the Appellants noted that the conditional approval issued by the Respondent failed to address that the driveway to be installed will be partially located on the common element property of the Condominium Corporation, which will have an impact on terrain, drainage and the height of the proposed development;
(ii) the Appellants also noted that the development plan does not identify certain features of the Property such as a culvert, a maple tree and stairs providing access to the neighbouring Unit 12, and as such, it was unclear what impact the proposed development would have on these features (including with respect to drainage); and,
(iii) the Appellants raised concerns regarding the failure of the Respondent to provide notice of the proposed development to the Condominium Corporation and other neighbouring properties. Upon further discussion, it was determined that this matter is not an issue to be adjudicated due to the fact that a hearing by the Hearing Office would be conducted as a hearing de novo, which will consider the matter afresh without reference to the administrative processes of the Respondent.
6The Parties proceeded to discuss the remaining issues, and the Applicant confirmed that a new set of drawings had been prepared which both (i) decreases the size of the proposed driveway and culvert, and (ii) properly identifies the existing culvert and maple tree. Mr. Young confirmed that he was satisfied with these new plans and it was agreed that the Torries would be provided with a copy to review in order to determine if the Applicant has adequately addressed the remaining issues (i) and (ii) set forth above.
7The Parties then agreed to schedule a subsequent CMC at which a Procedural Order and Issues List would be finalized in the event that the new development plans do not adequately satisfy the remaining issues raised in the appeal.
8The Hearing Office orders that a subsequent CMC will be held by video hearing on Thursday, January 11, 2024, at 10 a.m.
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/765631861
Access Code: 765-631-861
9Parties and Participants are asked to log into the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections.
10Parties and Participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html
11Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: (Toll-Free) 1-888-455-1389 or +1 (647) 497-9391. The access code is as indicated above.
12Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the hearing by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.
ORDER
13THE HEARING OFFICE ORDERS that Andrew and Emily McMillin are collectively granted Party status in this proceeding.
14There will be no further notice.
15This Hearing Officer is not seized.
“Jennifer Campbell”
JENNIFER CAMPBELL HEARING OFFICER
Ontario Land Tribunal Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.